Attorney: THIS is what’s DEEPLY wrong with new ATF gun rule
RADIO

Attorney: THIS is what’s DEEPLY wrong with new ATF gun rule

A new ATF ruling may turn as many as 40 MILLION Americans into felons. The rule, which concerns firearm pistol braces, doesn’t leave law-abiding gun owners with many options to obey: Either destroy the firearm, turn it in, or apply for a tax stamp that likely would take years to receive — within the next 120 days. Stephen Stamboulieh, Attorney for Gun Owners of America, joins Glenn to explain exactly what’s going on at the ATF, how YOU might avoid felony charges if affected, and specifically what it is about this new ruling makes him ‘wholly uncomfortable.’

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: We have Stephen Stamboulieh, on the phone with us. Stephen, welcome to the program. How are you, sir?

STEPHEN: I'm doing well. It's an honor to talk to you, Glenn, and even Stu.

STU: Wow. Wow.

GLENN: And even Stu.

STU: Don't lower yourself, Stephen. It's terrible.

GLENN: I've lost so much respect for you already. Hey, I watched your YouTube show, I think it was from the shot show last week.

STEPHEN: Yes.

GLENN: And I am trying to even understand what is going on, with the pistol brace rule. Because this could make 40 million Americans felons.

STEPHEN: Right.

GLENN: Has -- has this -- is this -- is this in effect now, as the clock started to tick. Where are we on this?

STEPHEN: Okay. So on Friday the 13th, they put out this final rule. But did not publish it in the Federal Register. I got back late Friday night.

I have not even checked the Federal Register, to see if it's, quote, published in the Federal Register.

But publishing it in the Federal Register, starts the clock ticking for you to do the things you need to do, to either remain compliant with the law.
Or their new law, that they just created.

Because, well, they hate all of us. Or, you know, turn in your rifle. Your pistol, whatever.

Or just ignore it, and become a felon. And go spend some time.

GLENN: Jeez.

Okay. So it could have started? We don't know yet. We can find out.

Can you see -- how do you check the Federal Register? I don't even -- how do you do that? Can the average person do that?

STEPHEN: Yeah. And that's exactly what they say. Is the average person has -- their -- their -- I can't even remember the exact language. But once it's published in the Federal Register, everyone is just deemed to be on notice, that it's been published on the Federal Register. And have knowledge of what's in the Federal Register. Even though most people don't have this masochistic streak, where they want to punish themselves by reading thousands of pages of bureaucratic regulations.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: I'm just about -- I'm on the page to search for it.

And there's 908,512 documents, which surely, I know everything that is in those documents.

GLENN: Well, you would if you were responsible and you check it every morning, like I do.

So what do you search for in this? Do you just search for, you know, bad guns?

STU: Evil gun.

GLENN: The -- the stabilizing braces?

STEPHEN: Stabilizing braces, correct.

GLENN: Okay. Look for stabilizing braces. Okay.

So once this has been published, we have 120 days to either get rid of the gun. Let me actually read this to you. This was the way it was pushed today.

Let's see, that you can get rid of the brace. Destroy -- get the tax stamp. Which is impossible. And you can explain that later. At least in time to comply.

Or destroy the pistol brace. Or you can -- or you can turn your if one into the ATF. I don't even know where the ATF is. Or you can go to prison.

So can we destroy the pistol brace?


STEPHEN: So they say that you can destroy the pistol brace. And the ATF has various methods of how you're supposed to destroy it. I mean, the easiest thing would be to crush it up. Throw it away, right?

But, yeah. That is one of your options. You can absolutely destroy your firearm, if you're so inclined to do. And you can 100 percent turn in your firearms to the ATF. I'm sure they would appreciate free guns.

GLENN: Oh, free guns. Last thing.

STEPHEN: Right. Well, for them. Right. The other thing they tell us to do, is since they're so kind. And so gracious. They're going to allow us this one time opportunity to get a free tax stamp. And, Glenn, you spoke about how hard it was to get a tax stamp. You know, you're looking at over -- over a year wait.

I mean, it's like a year wait right now. Before they want to add --

GLENN: 40 million. Right.

STEPHEN: Right. And if you take the ATF number, it's 3 million. If you take congressional research services, you know, bipartisan. They say up to 40 million.

Let's go with 40 million, right? Or anywhere in between, it doesn't matter. They're going to over -- just completely inundate the system with people trying to comply, right?

Because most citizens want to comply with the law, so they don't get their door kicked in. Their dog shot. And their gun seized. So, yeah. It's not going to happen within a year. I mean, maybe two years.

GLENN: Maybe. And you are a felon, if you have it, in those two years. Correct?

Even if they apply.

STEPHEN: So the way they say this. And this is what gives me so much heartburn over this. They're saying, we were wrong when we told you over and over and over again, that a braced pistol is not a short-barreled rifle.

It's always been a short-barreled rifle. We just said the wrong thing. And it's our bad, sorry.

So you're a felon if you have it now. But since we're such nice people. If you go through the process of registering it, right?

So you go and you do your E form one, or your paper form. Whatever. And you submit this to the ETF, along with your photographs and your fingerprints. Your address. And a picture of a firearm.

We will deem you to be in compliance, even though you have a short-barreled rifle. Because you've said it's a short barreled rifle.

Because they said it's a short-barreled rifle, and you don't have a tax stamp for it.

You are for saying in violation of the law.

But they're going to use their enforcement discretion to not come after you, assuming you do the things they tell you to do.

GLENN: Well, the ATF has also warned, reading from the article.

Americans with Pistol Braces are likely already violating the National Firearms Act by possessing an unregistered rifle with a barrel less than 16 inches.

To they're -- they're already saying, yeah. Even if you're doing all this, you're probably already a felon. This is madness.

STEPHEN: You're already committing the crime. You've committed the crime, by having, with their new definition, a brace pistol that fits into one of their multiple subjective criteria. You are committing the felony now.

And that's why they use enforcement discretion. Because you only use enforcement discretion, if you're violating the law. There's no need to use enforcement discretion, if you're not in violation of any law.

Because there's nothing to enforce.

GLENN: So let me -- so what do we do?

Because I don't think -- I mean, this can't pass a test in the courts.

I mean, it would maybe in California or New York.

But it's not going to -- even the ninth circuit, would probably even overturn this. Do we have time -- what do you do? Do you just sit here and wait it out?

STEPHEN: You know, that's a good question. What do you do? I'm wholly uncomfortable admitting to the ATF, that I have committed a felony, even though they said, they're not going to prosecute me. And their enforcement discretion. Because that changes. You've seen from almost everything the ATF does. They constantly change their minds. Along at the bump stocks. Look at the 80 percent lowers. Now look at the pistol brace. They have a demonstrable history of being wrong, and changing their mind on everything. So what's to stop them from changing their mind on enforcement discretion or saying, well, Mr. Beck, you just didn't do it good enough, and now we're going to prosecute you.

So, I mean, to answer your question, what did you do?

I mean, there's going to be some organization that will be suing them on this. Pretty soon.

GLENN: Okay. I can't imagine what that organization would be. But...

Okay.

STEPHEN: Right. Right. It's a secret to everybody.

GLENN: Yeah. It wouldn't be the gun owners of America, I'll tell you that right now.

Okay. So some organization is going to be suing them.

And how is that -- how long is that going to take?

STEPHEN: Well, it depends on -- on -- on -- oh, gosh.

So many different things.

You know, we would -- the organization would absolutely seek a temporary restraining order in a preliminary injunction throughout the litigation. Right?

So if that organization could get the rule held in, you know, abeyance law.

The court is deciding whether or not, the ATF can willy-nilly change its mind on everything.

Within 120 days, we would expect to have some kind of answer.

And 120 days is plenty enough time for the court to decide, whether or not to hold -- hold a rule, and, you know, just enjoying it, pending litigation.

I mean, it's plenty of time for them to do that.

STEPHEN: And it gives them 120 days. And it gives you lots of opportunity, in case they go against you. Can you give -- like, for instance, I live in two different counties. And I love my sheriffs.

And, you know, until this thing is worked out. Can I just go to my sheriff and say, here take this.

You can use this.

If it turns out to be a felony to own it, you guys take it. And you guys use it.

But I -- I don't want to possess it.

Because I am -- I would be the perfect target. You know what I mean?

They're not going to throw 40 million people in prison. But they will throw maybe a couple of hundred.

And that will teach everyone else. You can do this to them. We're coming for you.

STEPHEN: Right. You can absolutely turn it into your sheriff for, quote, safekeeping. While you're paying attention to what we're doing in the courts, to see if we're successful in the courts. I don't know why we wouldn't be.

I mean, this is just so --

GLENN: Obvious.

STEPHEN: It's like the definition of arbitrary and capricious. If you open up a dictionary, it would have a picture of the ATF right there.

GLENN: Yeah. But you would also have -- if this passes, then they can say, all semiautomatics.

I mean, Joe Biden is already saying, semiautomatic handguns are a problem. There's no use for them. That's every gun sold, unless you're buying an old western gun.

STEPHEN: Right. And that's funny that you say that. It just jogged my memory. I think it was the Sixth Circuit GOA bump stock case, the senior deputy counsel for DOJ could not answer whether or not all semiautomatic firearms were machine guns. Like all AR-15s.

GLENN: Right. Right.

STEPHEN: When the court asked him, h's like, I'm not prepared to answer them. And I thought, well, by God, that's a really easy question. No. The answer is no.

GLENN: Right. Right. But if you don't answer it now, you can answer it when you do it in a rule.

I mean, is this the first time that you've seen something that hasn't had a grandfather clause in it?

STEPHEN: No. Because look at bump stocks, right? After Trump directed the DOJ and the ATF to basically strike bump stocks with a pen. You know, all of them, turn them in. Mr. and Mrs. America. You're now felons.

And you've always -- this bump stock. Even though we said, prior to this, it was legal. One hundred percent legal, not a machine gun.

I know this is a common theme with the ATF.

We were wrong. And they are actually machine guns, and we are going to use our enforcement discretion, not to come after you.

However, you can't register them, because 18 USC 9220 does not allow you to have new machine guns, just prior to 1986 machine guns.

GLENN: Okay. So --

STEPHEN: You can still own a machine gun.

GLENN: Does the fact that that wasn't challenged, or did it lose --

STU: Can we say the fact that Republicans have rolled over as Trump did this and said nothing about it.

GLENN: Right. Does that hurt us on this now?

STU: Now there's more precedent for it.

GLENN: Well, what's great about the bump stock stuff, is in the Sixth Circuit, GOA 1 at the panel.

At like the three-judge panel stage, and basically, the court really just called out the ATF. And said, you can't do this. And then when -- basically, the full court. They evenly split, and an even split say bad thing. If you lose in the trial court.

Because what it does, is it affirms the trial court ruling, because the -- the court couldn't free on how it was. However, a Fifth Circuit came in for the win a couple weeks ago in the cargo case.

And basically, involved 13-3, told the ATF, bump stocks are not machine guns.

So, you know -- you know, your move to ATF.

So the circuits are split on that because all of the different circuits can't agree. And what does that do?

It sets you up for the perfect Supreme Court case.

Because you can't have Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana, apply one federal law one way, and then the other states applying it a different way.

So the Supreme Court is going to have to step in and resolve that circuit split. Because that's a pretty big deal.

STU: Of course, all these companies that are making these things are now out of business. Right?

You know, three years down the line.

Yeah. It's like -- this is the process, which is the punishment half the time.

GLENN: So we've been talking about Stephen Stamboulieh. And he's with the Gun Owners of America.

You can follow all of the information at gunowners.org. Gunowners.org. Or you can follow Stephen on his Twitter handle @Stambo2A. I like -- Stambo2A.

Stephen, thank you so much, I appreciate it. We'll talk to you again.

STEPHEN: Yes, sir. Take care.

GLENN: You bet. Buh-bye.

The BIGGEST Reason Why Glenn is AGAINST the TikTok Bill
RADIO

The BIGGEST Reason Why Glenn is AGAINST the TikTok Bill

Congress is debating a bill that would force the Chinese company that owns TikTok to either divest from the app or face a TikTok ban in America. But is this bill a good idea, or is it a Trojan Horse that would give the government the power to go after American companies as well? Glenn reviews what’s really in the bill and why he’s siding with its opponents. Plus, he reviews the debate he hosted between Rep. Chip Roy, who co-sponsored it, and Rep. Thomas Massie, who opposes it, and reveals his biggest takeaway from all of this.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: If you miss last night's Wednesday night show, you missed a lot.
We talked about TikTok.

And I know I'm in the minority. But I'm -- I wasn't sure where I stood, until last night.

I had two people, I invited two guests on. That have opposite views. But are usually on the same side.

And I both -- I respect their commitment. Both of them. To the Constitution.

One of them is Chip Roy. The congressman from Texas.

And the other is Thomas Massie.

Thomas from Kentucky, he is -- he is Libertarian.

And always concerned about things like the Patriot Act. Et cetera, et cetera.

But so is Chip Roy, but Chip is also very concerned about our security, and China. He knows what we're facing. I agree with both of them on why this is an important issue.

So last night, I had them debate each other, go back and forth. And, man, it was so refreshing, to see three people talk about something that we disagree on, but nobody became disagreeable. I mean, we were like, yeah. Okay.

I really see your point on this one. It was really. It's something that we just don't have enough of. And last night, they debated it.

Massey was against, and Chip Roy was for.
In fact, he sponsored the TikTok banning bill.

STU: What was the result of this?

Was there a unanimous decision? A split decision at the end?

How did this come out?

GLENN: No. Yeah. They both stayed in their position.

And I was looking for help. Because I -- you know, I -- I read the bill.

We went over a lot of it, last night. Line by line.

And there's some disturbing things in there.

For instance, let me just go through some of this. This is the protecting Americans from foreign adversary controlled applications act.

Wow.

If you look at section two, under foreign adversary controlled application. It shows, that it's not just a phone app. It's individual websites could also be seized. That makes sense.

But supporters of this bill, point out, that it's just foreign adversary apps.

And the website.

That it doesn't. That it specifically points out, foreign adversary controlled, all throughout the bill.

Well, that's a little vague.

Because when you say, they're controlled by a foreign adversary.

We have been accused of being for -- of, you know, controlled by Russia.

Israel.

Who else have we been. Well, they're controlled by a foreign adversary.

STU: Yeah. Whoever is convenient at the time. In theory, there's only the four -- that are labeled in this bill. Which are North Korea. China. Russia. And Iran.

So Israel wouldn't apply. But Russia would.

GLENN: So risen to what they said about Donald Trump. When he went to North Korea. He's being controlled by a foreign -- he's in with North Korea and Russia.

When Tucker went to Russia, how many people said, he's just a pawn for Putin?

Well, does that mean that Tucker Carlson, if the president -- because he's the one who decides. If the president decides, that you're being controlled by a foreign adversary. Does that mean Tucker Carlson can just go away?

STU: I mean, really direct example of this, would be Truth Social. Right?

They claim that Donald Trump is a Russian asset. And has been a Russian asset since the 1980s.

GLENN: Yes. Correct.

STU: And he basically owns a very large chunk of Truth Social. And that's one of the things that made me nervous about the bill.

Is that one section that tries to define what a foreign adversary. Where it obviously like, if the Chinese government were to own a company.

Okay. That makes sense.

If a Chinese foreign national owns a company, and they answer to the Chinese Communist Party.

That would make sense. And be obvious.

But there's a third section.

And maybe you guys went over this last night. That kind of hits a person who is a US citizen, that is, quote, unquote, controlled by a foreign entity. Right?

GLENN: Yes. Controlled.

Yes.

If -- I'm quoting. If determined by the president, to be a -- a present threat, to the national security of the United States.

A threat to the national security.

What does -- what does that mean?

And a threat to national security, just in the last year, we've heard election deniers are a threat to our democracy.

Vaccine deniers, Christian nationalists, climate deniers. All of these are a threat to national security.

So in the end, when it says, you -- you -- you're hostile to what?

We're -- people who believe in the Constitution are called hostile to the government. We're trying to overthrow the government. No, we're not. We're trying to stop you from overthrowing the government. We believe in the Constitution! So you're a foreign adversary.

Okay.

Now, there's the -- there's a term called the covered company. That doesn't include an entity, that operates a website. Desktop application. Mobile application. Or augmented or immersive technology application.

Whose primary purpose is to allow users to post reviews, product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews. Now, is Yelp in the middle of a sale to Communist China?

Who had the juice, to put this in?

One of the cosponsors was Chip Roy. And I said, Chip, who put that in?

He said, I don't have any idea. But one of the cosponsors, and I think there were 20 of them.

Had somebody call up and say, hey, I want this language in there. So what website is worried about their product reviews and travel information. Being deemed a threat to the United States of America. Because it's not just, you know, an entity controlled.

It's an entity controlled by a -- a country, that we're at war with. And they are a threat, to our national security.

So, I mean, is the yelp review a threat to our national security? And if so, that is a little frightening.

STU: That does really pop up some interesting questions, right?

Obviously, who put this in? Is interesting.

I don't know what it means exactly. Like, I don't --

GLENN: Exactly.

I want to know. What I wanted to know, last night was, why was somebody so concerned about their review site, that they wanted it written in?

Because we've been told, this is only for sites like ByteDance. TikTok. Okay.

And when you see, and we showed it last night. Who really owns, ByteDance and TikTok.

How that's built. It is absolutely insane.

So they could sell it to another entity. And get around all of it.

This is crazy. Here's the lasting segment.

And where I ended up. This is from last night's Blaze TV, Glenn Beck Wednesday night special.

We are at war.

We are a nation at war.

We're at war, with other countries.

We're at war with China. And the Communist Party. Absolutely.

We are fighting a proxy war, which could very well become a -- a hot war. With Russia.

And could become a world war.

The way things are stacking up.

But we're also at war, with big tech.

We're at war with Communism and fascism in our own country, being taught to our own children at our own schools. We're at war with our own intelligence community and Justice Department.

And it's not just our Justice Department and Intel. It's the five eyes all over the world. We are at war with the corporate oligarchs, the politicians and the elites all over the world from the UN to the WEF.

To hell, I don't even know. Is it chamber of commerce any good anymore?

But most important, we are at war, with ourselves. We don't know who we are anymore. We're losing our country, because we lost our values. And when you lose your values, I lose history. Because it has no meaning, anymore.

What were you really fighting for? And is that worth it?

And because we lost our values, we lost our history. You lose your history. You lose your traditions. You lose your traditions, you lose your family.

And in the end, you lose yourself. I honestly think, that's where we are. We're damn close to that, if not already passed it.

You're not going to repair this country. By giving more power, to a government, that only seeks more power.

You've got to empower the people. Somehow or another, we need to as people, care what is happening to our children.

And I say this, with the understanding of what I told you at the beginning.

Even my own family rolls their eyes at me. I know.

I know. I keep coming back to the Founders, without a religious and moral people, this system is wholly inadequate. We're not those people anymore. It doesn't mean we can't be.

But right now, there are remnants of those people. Because we're fighting this war on every single front.

I'm against the TikTok ban. I -- I so trust Chip Roy. I love Chip. And I trust him. He's a constitutionalist. He's a Texan from 1853. I mean, don't mess with the Texan.

But I don't trust the people around him.

And a government that is seeking more and more power, and more and more control, and isn't already in bed, with giant corporate tech. And China.

And a government that doesn't seem to care about its people over oligarchs and, you know, the rich, the corporations, the lawyers. I can't give any more power.

And I won't give any more power to a president, that doesn't defend the Constitution, at all costs.

And I haven't seen them in quite a while.

So that's where I came down.

I don't know where you'll come down on this.

But I think this is a very important question.

Again, because this is all the stuff they said about the Patriot Act. Oh, it will never be used against you.

And I said, all they have to do is change the definition of extremist. And they could absolutely turn this on you.

Yes, but they won't.

They have! They have.

STU: Yeah, it's a fascinating one. They've done it many times, right?

And, you know, I don't know. You look at this, and you say, well.

For example, the foreign adversary thing you were talked about earlier. A US citizen that is, quote, unquote, controlled by and for an adversary. You can see there would be all sorts of problems with that, and you could rewrite that.

You could change that, pull that out of the bill.

But if you do that, it's not effective, right?

Because then China could just pay, you know, $100 million to some US citizen to run their thing.

And I'm sure there would be no way to track whether it was still controlled by the Chinese government.

At the end of the day, it's not going to be effective. And I don't know. When it comes down to a decision that is close, I just don't want to give the government any more power.

GLENN: Amen.

And I have to tell you, controlled by a foreign adversary, China. Well, I could make that case. And we made it yesterday, in Congress.

You can make that case, about the Biden family, and the White House.

It's -- it's a -- it's being controlled by a hostile, foreign power. And they're doing its bidding.

What the New $1.2 TRILLION Spending Bill Funds with YOUR Tax Dollars
RADIO

What the New $1.2 TRILLION Spending Bill Funds with YOUR Tax Dollars

The House has passed a $1.2 trillion spending bill to fund the government through September. But with only a day to review its text, do they even know what they passed? Glenn reviews some of the insane spending in this bill, including money for JORDAN’S border, transgender underwear for kids, and a whole bunch of earmarks and public private partnerships. So, will the Senate Republicans stand strong?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Article one, section eight, again? It's --

STU: First of all, I want to say that Lear Capital, a good sponsor for this particular segment. Yes, section eight, powers of Congress.

Congress shall have powers to delay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense, general welfare of the United States. And all duties, imposts and excises should be uniform throughout the United States.

GLENN: Okay. So can you find the grooming, binding, and tucking clause? In --

STU: Grooming, binding, and tucking. I'm searching for those words, Glenn. I'm not seeing them in Section 8.

Is it possible, it was in another --

GLENN: What would the Founders, probably old-timey speak. What would the founders put in the Constitution. If our teenagers would want to bind their breasts and tuck their wiener. What would that be under?

STU: That's the one that was in invisible ink on the back.

GLENN: Oh, where you need the special Ben Franklin glasses!

STU: Exactly, yes. You nailed it.

GLENN: Right. Okay.

Well, you know, I -- I have to tell you, you know, when we have -- what is it, 400,000?

Let me just go through what we have. We have $500 million, appropriated for the Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

I don't even -- I don't even know what that is. Oh, okay. Wait. Wait.

For operation maintenance, defense-wide for the government of Jordan, to support the armed forces of Jordan and to enhance security around its borders. You know, it bothers me that they say there's no real spending for borders. Because there's lots.

There's $500 million, for Jordan to protect its borders. Of the amounts appropriated of this act. Under the operation of defense. Defense Secretary, cooperation agency.

$380 million, on top of the 500, will be available -- oh, boy. We're being tough.

Only until September 30th. This offer expires. It will be available to reimburse Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, and HEP Ehemen for the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year of 2016 for enhanced border security. Which, not less than 150 million will be for Jordan.

So they get -- Jordan gets the -- let's see. They get the 500 million. To protect their borders.

Then they can dip back in, and get another 150 million. To protect their borders.

So I think this is good. You know, I don't -- I don't -- I don't have a problem with it. Now, there is a -- there is a couple of things.

There are a couple of things, that are a little odd in this. For instance, the money for the -- for the brooming, binding, and tucking.

They're going to give an awful lot of money, for new underpants for kids. That get their underpants from LGBTQ organizations.

Which, I know my kids have often gotten their underpants from LGBTQ organizations. Because there's a lot of LGBTQ kids out there, without underpants.

Because, you know, that's -- well, that's just the way America is right now. Underpantless. And so, you have a problem? You greedy capitalist pig. Spending -- spending this money, for underpants. For kids that don't have underpants. And I don't mean just regular underpants. These are special underpants. They make the weenie go away. They make the breasts go away.

What's next?

You people. You just want to see kids without underpants. Oh, no. Wait. Sorry.

Those have lately just been the teachers. In the schools, that are dreaming about little kids without underpants. So that's good.

I don't know. I think this -- I think this is really going to do -- this is going to do well.

I'm -- I'm pretty sure. I'm pretty sure. Anybody have a problem with it, Stu? Got a problem?

STU: I have a minor problem with it, Glenn. It did go far enough. Why are we stopping at $1.2 trillion?

That's basically couchcution money, you know, where is the real spending?

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait. Don't forget. This is the second bill. The other bill, that goes with this. The companion piece.

They broke it down. They broke it down.

STU: Okay. Well, there were 12 funding bills total.

And this one, they're getting to the nitty-gritty here.

We've seen a drastic change in the Congress, since they changed leadership. Wow. It's been massive. I've seen. The spending is just -- totally changing. They're really doing a great job.

And look, there are limitations on this.

I get it. They're the minority party overall, in the government. What can Republicans do? Eh. You know, not all that much. Unless they want to force the government to shut down, which they do not want to do. So they will keep doing this, and spending at levels that Democrats are comfortable with.

And they think they only need about 100 Republicans to vote for this. About ten to 15 Democrats will probably vote against it.

Which leaves about -- you need about 100. And they shouldn't have no problem getting over that 100 barrier in the House. Again, things go on as normal. No problems here.

Whatever problems you think there are, with spending. You're wrong.

Ius let them spend as much money, on what they want. On whatever they want. I was reading the list of winners on this bill, Glenn.

And they're -- they're just great. You know, listen to some of this.

This is -- this is -- and this is from punch bowl. Earmarks are back in a big way. Senator Jerry Moran HEP got 17.5 million for the Eisenhower Library.

Senator Lindsey Graham got 11.2 million for health. Retiring senator Joe Manchin was a winner. He and Shelly Moore Capito locked in 15 million for the Charleston Area Medical Center, and 15 million for Marshal University. Senator John HEP Boosman procured 15 million for Lion College and the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff.

Tammy Baldwin was a quiet earmark champ. Inserting dozens of earmarks, across numerous bills.

This is great!

Look at all the winners we have from our government.

GLENN: This is great. Look at the winners. And, yeah. I want to talk about some of the private/public partnerships. The Garden State, I'm sorry, equality, education fund inc. from New Jersey.

They get the underpants. $400,000 of underpants. $850,000 is allocated for the LGBTQ senior housing in Massachusetts for services for older LGBTQ.

It might be a different kind of underpants for them, and the senior housing. I'm not really sure. Up to $500 million appropriated for the -- the defense security.

Let's see. Then you -- then you have all kinds of money. Did you see the -- did you see the Twitter, or the guy on X, yesterday?

I just tweeted this. Who was giving the actual breakdown. Put it through ChatGPT. And said, break this down.

Tell me what we're, actually, spending here. What's -- where is all of this money going?

Well, he -- it did -- it did really -- it did pretty well. Quite honestly.

If you look at the -- if you look at the bill, you can figure out, who is making what.

And I have to tell you, there are agencies, that I don't even know. I didn't even know existed.

That are getting billions of dollars. Billions of dollars.

If you look at what USA ID is getting. Do you know what USAIK is?

USAID is an arm of the CIA. That's all it is. And it's giving money all over the world.

And not for anything that you actually think is right. But for what the CIA thinks is right.

Anybody who votes for this bill, first of all, it came out, what? At 215 last night. 2:15 a.m. they're supposed to vote on it, today or tomorrow.

You can't do this. They've known about this forever. And they've gone out, in advance, and said to all of the senators and the House members. Look, what do you want?

What is it going to take for you to pass this bill?

They must know what was in the bill. What is it going to take for you?

Well, I need $15 million, for Lindsey Graham library.

Okay. But but you'll support it then. Sure. Sure, I will.

You have to call your senator and your House rep and say, absolutely not. We're going to go through the bill with Thomas Massie here in just a second.

But everybody I trust in Congress and the Senate, has written me in the last, you know, six hours that said, Glenn. Can't. Can't. Can't do it. Can't do it.

This is -- let me give you the quote from one of them.

He said, he was really mad. You could tell who this was. This was him super, super mad. He was going off the rails.

Glenn, we're going to hell in a handbag. Yeah. Can you imagine?

I think you can tell, which senator that might be. Because he was very upset last night.

Going to hell in a handbag. It is -- it is really, we're at the last chance, to save our -- our country.

If you look at all the things that are happening. If we don't turn this thing around, by fall, sorry, bang. Sorry. I hate to say it. But you're just not going to come back from all of this. The attorney general in New York now just made their first move to take Trump's assets. Looks like they're going after his golf course in Westchester.

So they are taking property away from people now. Congratulations. Confratlations on that.

By the way, speaking of the CIA, the FBI, you know, is going to get another -- a brand-new. What is it, a $200 million building in this bill? That's what I'm thinking. You know what. Maybe it's a building. Maybe that's a toxic building. Maybe we need to get him a new 200 million-dollar palace, for them to operate their -- their operations against the citizens of the United States.

The CIA now has been confronted by -- by the weaponization of the government committee. As they're looking into Hunter Biden. The CIA is -- is refusing to verify. But you can trust these guys.

Two witnesses have come out, from their -- they're federal investigators. So they've believe out from the Justice Department. And they've said, yeah. We were stopped for looking into the Hunter Biden thing by the CIA. They told us, we couldn't talk to this person, this person, or this person.

So they were thwarting our investigation. Oh, the CIA was. Oh, okay.

You were looking into a crime, uh-huh. And it was of Joe Biden's kids. Okay.

And you were thwarted and told, no. You can't look at these things. All right.

I don't know about you. Maybe, you know what, maybe the CIA just needs a bigger building. Maybe that's what we should do.

2 Reasons Why Everyone Needs to GET OUT of New York City
RADIO

2 Reasons Why Everyone Needs to GET OUT of New York City

Leftists are ruining New York City, Glenn says, and a recent attack on former president Donald Trump may be the final sign that everyone needs to GET OUT. Glenn argues that if New York Attorney General follows through on her promise to seize Trump’s assets, it will lead to a mass exodus of businesses from the city. But it’s not just business owners who are at risk of losing everything. Glenn reviews how New York’s insane squatting laws have let a squatter sue a homeowner because she wouldn’t let him live in her house! Are there ANY property rights in NYC anymore?!

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You know, when it comes to negotiations, you really shouldn't -- you really should check out your case, especially when you're sitting across the table from Donald Trump.

Because the one thing he does do well, is hard-core negotiations.

So Donald Trump is facing a deadline on Monday, to post a 454 million-dollar bond, in the civil fraud case, against him, in New York. Well, he can't raise the money. His lawyer said, it was practically an impossibility.

And the press and everybody else -- oh, Latisha James, she's got to go after him. She's got to take his stuff. Oh, I think Donald Trump is -- is waiting for her to take his stuff. Really? Really?

Now, this is a guy who loves New York. He was popular in New York, for many reasons. One of which, the guy, actually, really loved New York.

And did things that weren't necessarily beneficial for him, monetarily. Like, oh, I don't know.

Rebuilding the ice rink, after the city spent a decade trying to fix it. He finally came in to fix it, and did it, in I don't even know, like eight months?

So he loves the city. But, you know what, you're going to kick me to the curb? Okay. That's fine. Now, he was ordered to pay $354 million.

That's more than anyone has ever been -- ever been charged with.

Nobody has ever been told, they have to kick up a 454 million-dollar bond. Let alone, in just 30 days.

Okay?

So what has she been saying?

Well, that's fine. You don't do it. You don't pony up with that. Then we can seize your assets in 30 days.

Okay? This bond number has ever been issued before. No insurance bond company has ever been issued near this. So there's really no chance of this happening. And only giving them 30 days notice.

All right. So Donald Trump is calling their bluff.

Okay. Take my property. Go ahead. Take Trump Tower.

Do you know what that's going to do to New York?

You seize Donald Trump's property, because he can't cough up the bond.

Go ahead. Now, let's look towards the future. How are you going to sell that thing?

What happens if he wins an appeal. And you've sold his property.

Is he going to sue the state, to get the money that he should have been worth? What happens if he could have won on the bond, and he has his property?

What happens, even more importantly, because this is no longer about Donald Trump. And this is where Donald Trump has his power seat at the negotiating table.

He's so smart.

He's sitting there, and he's saying, oh, yeah. You think you're going to hurt me.

No. You know what you're really going to hurt?

New York. Because you can't just take someone's property. Because you don't like them politically. In a case, like this.

That has never, ever -- never believe before the court before. Where they have -- where they've taken somebody's business.

I mean, real crime has happened.

And they have charged people under the same charges, that he was tried under.

And they didn't lose anything.

Okay?

Really? Really?

Okay. So that sends the message to the rest of the business world.

You disagree with the attorney general, or the governor.

And they'll destroy you and your company.

Good! Good!

There's a great article that's out in our show prep today. From the shark tank guy. Kevin O'Leary.

Listen to this. He said, think about this, America.

The reason this is the number one economy on earth, is that we have laws, we have due process, and we have property rights. That's what attracts foreign capital from all over the world. Now, foreign capital outside of China, buying up all the farmland.

Where is that foreign capital going?

Mainly, to cities like New York City. They buy big buildings.

All of that is being shaken to the core here.

The concept of seizing assets in 30 days, there is no chance, that's going to happen.

And this is a really bad message. New Yorkers should think well past Trump, whether he's president or not.

Or whether the attorney general is gone in four years. That's irrelevant. This is case setting, against the American brand. The most stable country on earth, anywhere. To put capital to work over a long period of time. Especially in real estate.

This is an assault on what we believe, to the core.

It's an attack on America. And I don't know how you can look at it, as any other way. And as an investor, I know plenty of investors, who are completely disturbed by this.

But, I mean, no one is going to put any money to work in New York, in these amounts, until this thing settles down.

The whole world is watching, and everybody is waiting for the one thing they haven't got yet. Adult supervision. Where is it?

Where are the adults in this crazy narrative?

Certainly, there's got to be adult supervision, at some point.

And I understand, you know, the war going on, here is all political. Yada, yada, yada.

Woof. Woof.

But we need an adult in the room now.

This is the United States of America, under siege, end quote.

It's pretty powerful, and right.

So let me just tie that with this story.

A suspected squatter, who allegedly took over a million that are queens home. That's Queens, New York. Is now subletting space to the house.

Kevin Ballasty said he was conned into paying $1,500 a month to live in the basement of a flushing home, with the deal made with Jay.

Who he identified as the squatter, first exposed by WACTV. This was a story that was in yesterday's show prep, about the squatter. Okay? Now, the squatter is subletting the home. Here's what happened. Yesterday, in case you didn't get the newsletter at GlennBeck.com.

Yesterday, there was a story from WABC, that talked about this woman and her daughter, that were away. They come back.

She opens up the door.

And the guy says, what the hell you doing in my house? She's like, what the hell are you doing in my house? All of her furniture everything is there.

She calls the police. The police kick him out.

They say, you cannot change the locks. That's against the state law of -- of New York.

You can't change the locks. Otherwise, he could take you to court.

She's like, he -- he -- he is squatting in my house.

I have a daughter. I'm a woman. I'm going to change the locks. The police say, don't do it. You're going to break the law.

The next day, she has the locks changed. He comes back. Tries to open the door. It's locked.

He doesn't have a key. And what happens? He goes back to the same police, brings them back to the house, and now she's in court.

She's suing her!

So now the squatter is subletting her house. Is there any right to property in New York at all?

You couple this with the story about Donald Trump. What do you think is going to happen to New York?

I'm telling you right now. What I told my kids, seven years ago.

Eight -- oh, my gosh. Has it been -- wow. It's been ten years, I think.

And I said to my kids, at the time. Before any of this was happening.

This city is going to burn itself to the ground.

This city is going to be a nightmare.

It's going to be an escape from New York.

It's only a matter of time.

We're leaving.

Dad! You're always so dramatic. Uh-huh.

Well, watch.

Look what's happened to New York. Would you want to live in New York?

Do you want to own property in New York. They can offer me the Trump Tower for $10. James could come to me, and say, Glenn.

I just seized this. It's only $10. You buy it. Free and clear. It's yours. No freaking way, man.

No way. I'm not just worried about how I would be losing $10, because in an appeal, he could take that back. And then I'm in court, with you?

No.

But here's what it really says. I don't want to own any property in New York City. Because they're going to continue to tax the rich to death. Property owners are going to be the worst people to have ever lived.

Anybody who rents out any space, is going to become a robber baron.

The city is going to get more and more corrupt. More and more dangerous, for people who just want to live. The school systems are absolute crap.

The city is now suing the bus company. That is bringing in the immigrants.

Suing the bus company. Not suing -- not suing the Biden administration.

No. No. No. No. Not trying to stop that influx.

No. No.

Suing the bus company, while New York and JFK and La Guardia.

Those are the biggest end destinations for people this government are allowing to board a plane without any documentation. And come into this country, as an illegal immigrant. The government is endorsing it! In many cases, we're flying them to New York, for free!

On your dollar!

You're going to live in New York. Good luck with that. Good luck with that.

If you're listening to New York, and you agree with anything I'm saying here. Think deeply.

I know your family is there.

I group up here. My family is here.

Uh-huh.

All of that, all of that, that you grew up with, ain't coming back soon.

These people won't get it until they've destroyed absolutely everything. I honestly believe that's their plan.

Destroy everything. Get out.

Escape from New York.

Texas Official Accuses Federal Court of HELPING Cartels by Blocking Immigration Law
RADIO

Texas Official Accuses Federal Court of HELPING Cartels by Blocking Immigration Law

The courts have gone back and forth and back again on the Texas immigration law, SB4. The law gives Texas the power to secure the border and deport illegal immigrants to Mexico as the federal government fails to do so. But after the Supreme Court allowed the law to remain in effect while the Biden administration challenges it, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has decided to stop it. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton joins Glenn with his reaction: “I’ve never seen anything like it. I don’t understand it. It’s bizarre.” Paxton also accuses the 5th Circuit of helping and protecting the cartels with this order.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Ken, the attorney general from the great state of Texas. How are you, sir?

KEN: I'm doing well. Pretty crazy stuff going on right now, as usual.

GLENN: Yeah. I know. Thank you for joining us.

I know you're getting ready for your argument with the appellate court today. Can you tell me what happened?

Yesterday, the Supreme Court said, Texas can begin arresting. And I get up this morning, and the appellate court said, no. No. No.

Not so fast.

KEN: Well, this is one of the more confusing and inexplicable things I've experienced in the court. It started out with the district court with the Biden administration and a little group called the ACLU sued us saying that the floor was unconstitutional.

We didn't the right to expel anybody from the country, no matter how bad they were. So the judge, with where they filed a lawsuit, put an injunction on our law.

So it couldn't go into effect March 4th the date it was supposed to go into effect.

We appealed that. The three-judge panel ruled in our favor. We got the stay lifted.

But they put what they called an administrative stay on it, give the Supreme Court a chance to review it.

It goes up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court says, no fine. Six-zero. It can go into effect. So we're good. We're happy. Within hours, we're notified by a new panel of the Supreme Court, Priscilla Owen, I think a Bush appointee. And then we have a liberal judge, appointed by one of the Democrats. And we had Andy Holden (phonetic) who ruled in our favor. So we lost two-one. They put another stay back in. Then they ordered us to have a -- a hearing, within less than 12 hours from finding out.

So, actually, my guy is arguing by Zoom right now, if the court in New Orleans, that three-judge panel, that really odd argument. Because they removed the stay. But they said, that's what the argument is about.

It's almost like they've already decided. They still want to us argue the case.

I don't know. I've never seen it. And I don't understand it. It's bizarre.

GLENN: Why?

Yeah. I was talking to Mike Lee today. And he said, you know, stays are usually to stay from harm. What we have going on here, is a whole lot of harm.

We have crime. We have killers. We have just -- just an invasion of our border. And it should be that the court should say. No. No. No.

Let them arrest, until they look at everything.

Instead, the harm that is being perceived, I guess, by this court. Is to the illegal alien.

MIKE: Yes, to the illegal alien, and to the Biden administration's partnership with cartels. That's the harm. We are harming the cartel relationship. And that's -- I don't know how else to put it. If the court defends this. If they block us from enforcing legitimate half law by the legislature, not by the governor.

Then they are saying, we want to protect any harm that might come to the illegal immigrants and to the Biden administration's work with the cartels. That's the reality where we're at now.

GLENN: So what is your guy arguing?

I wish we could listen in. What's he --

MIKE: He's arguing exactly what you are saying. There's no harm. Let the law stay in effect. The arguments of the case. And you let us have the opportunity to uphold and defend, a purposefully enacted law bit Texas legislature. The people.

GLENN: So when is -- when are they going to -- when is this going to be decided? I mean, I know the stay is for the trial.

I guess they would announce something within a couple of days, on the stay. What about the full case?

MIKE: I mean, they've already removed the stay. So the administrative stay of the stay.

So confusing.

Because there was a -- you know, a stay in place. Then they had the administrative stay as the stay.

That's why it was so hard to explain. What they will do, I think they will rule very quickly. Look how fast they went.

The Supreme Court gave us the victory yesterday afternoon, and by, you know, within an hour or two, the Fifth Circuit, Priscilla and others said no. You can't -- this law can't stay in effect.

We'll let the state go back into effect. The original judge put into place.

Then you have to argue it tomorrow at ten in the morning, which I've never had an argument turn around that fast, on something so insignificant. Even on something minor. That's what is so strange about this.

That's part of it. The circuit would sort of step past the Supreme Court. Well, we'll think about this going into effect.

It's despite the fact, that exactly what you said, the harm is defective. There is no harm to this. I mean, I will acknowledge harm to the cartels. I will acknowledge they are being harmed.

It's true. We are harming the cartel.

GLENN: Right. Harm to the drug industry. Harm to the fentanyl pushers.

Harm to the drug traffickers. The human traffickers.

Yeah. So, yes. Yes.

Venezuela.

MIKE: In public, in court, anywhere.
We are arming them.

GLENN: Yes.

So that was the other question. And you just touched on it.

How does a lower court usurp the Supreme Court?

MIKE: So they basically. The Supreme Court, to put it back to the fifth circuit, and said, we're not -- we're not going to -- undo the administrative state of the stay.

So they left our -- our law in place.

That the fifth circuit still has control of the case right now. Because it's back down to them.

And they can rule however they want. And they can protect if they want to protect the cartels. They can protect the cartels.

It's within their power to do that.

GLENN: Another thing that happened over night.

And this is the first thing I was worried about.

I saw this late last night.

And then I saw, oh, well, we don't have to worry about that. As much as we do. Maybe people inside our own country.

The president of Mexico said, Texas isn't going to return anybody to the border of Mexico. Or fly them into Mexico.

Which made me think of the 18,000 people that we finally got out of Afghanistan. We were thwarted by the Department of State every day, all the time. Several times a day.

We had a plane with refugees, in the air.

And we had a place to land. Another country, had already okayed it. And the State Department called and said, we can't vouch for that plane.

So I wouldn't allow it to land.

And they -- they stopped us from flying any place.

Can the -- can the governments do that? To Texas?

MIKE: It seems wrong to me.

We also have this case in the Supreme Court, this knocked out our -- being an injunction for the Fifth Circuit. To stop the 30,000 people they're flying in. Flying in! From Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, and Venezuela. Flying in, so 30,000 a month, are being flown in.

We're paying for it. The country is paying for this. The Biden administration is paying for this. It's completely illegal. And we had an injunction to stop it.

The Supreme Court just a week ago, got rid of our own injunction. So now the 30,000 people don't even -- we're paying for them to come to the country illegally.

I can't make this stuff up.

GLENN: Yeah. I don't know.

I'm trying to figure out the distinction between injunction and a stay, what the difference is there, but.

MIKE: I'm sorry. It's language that they use.

But basically, we had a junction stopping the Biden administration from importing 30,000 people a month from those four countries. The four I mentioned. And the Supreme Court, six to three, said no. The injunction goes away. Go back and litigate this case.

Here we are, we now have 30,000 people a month. And we can't stop it. So it will take -- who knows how long? Every month, 30 thousands of individuals more. We're paying for this. Are going all over the country, from those four countries I've mentioned. And on top of that. Now Texas has an injunction, stopping us from enforcing our own laws. Protecting our state from illegal immigration.

It's very frustrating.

It seems like, even when we get rulings that allow us to go back to court. There are the rulings that allow it to take years. And so you will buy another 300,000 people fly across the border. They won't even go to the Border Patrol anymore. They just fly in.

GLENN: Ken, I am sure you know this. Because you live in Texas as well.

You know, there's an old saying, don't mess with Texas.

And, you know, fortunately, or unfortunately, whichever way you want to look at it, a lot of Texans mean that.

And a lot of Texans are seeing this as an invasion. And they're seeing this out of control government. You know, doing exactly what you just said.

And destroying us. Intentionally poisoning us.

And there's a lot of Texans that I think are, you know, kind of up to here. How do we -- how do we diffuse this, this back and forth?

How do we diffuse it, just so it doesn't get to a boiling point. That you can't turn down.

Look, all we can do. I have lawyers. People all the time say, why don't you do more?

The legislature gives me lawyers. They don't give me anything else. I go where I can fight.

I think eventually, if you have such disdain -- if the federal government has such disdain for the law and the Constitution, then eventually the people have a right to say, no, we're not putting up with this anymore.

And the Declaration of Independence, is clear on that. These rights are inalienable. They're from God. They're not from Joe Biden and not from Donald Trump. They are inalienable.

And we have a right to those rights. And eventually, the people have to find a way to overcome that. And what that is, I don't know.

Hopefully, the next election will speak to that.

And those rights will start being honored as fundamental rights to human beings.

GLENN: That is one of the most amazing statements I think I've ever heard from a government official.

I -- I hope we -- I hope the next election with you, I hope the next election solves these things.

Because we're in constitutional crisis, after constitutional crisis.

And it's got to stop.

KEN: We are on our way. And if we're not there now. We don't have a constitutional republic. If the rule of law, the Constitution can be put aside, set aside, and flip to mean anything, that a few justices think it means.

And they can dishonor fundamental rights, that were guaranteed in our Constitution, then now we're back to the Declaration of Independence. And that is a big place to be. As you know.

GLENN: Yeah. Ken Paxton.

God bless you. Thank you. We'll pray for your win today.

God bless. The attorney general of the great state of Texas.

Why do I feel like history, we just lived history.